Should I highlight the intentionally and cartoonishly misleadinging bits in red? OK.

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

The gist of it: Mitt wants to portray Obama supporters as lazy, shiftless freeloaders. I'm not going to dignify that crap.

Of course, the really big whopper is what's implied by his stats: Those 47% who don't pay taxes (that's just federal, btw, most pay state, local, and/or payroll) are co-extensive with the 47% (completely made-up number, btw) who vote for Obama "no matter what." Hilarious. Most of the states with the lowest income tax liabilty lean Republican. Senior citizens (less likely to pay income tax) lean heavily toward Romney.

Yeah, you'll need to dignify that crap.

With the possible exception of "47 percent", I'm not sure what part isn't true. If you're OK with sucking the govt teat, you're not voting for anyone but Obama.

Amirite?

No, you're not right. You're not right about anything.

I don't need to dignify Romney/Miketitty's little game of mass character assassination.

I'm not going to pretend you're little phrase "sucking the government teat" has any substantive meaning.

Oh, btw, you do realize these 47% aren't necessarily poor, don't you? In 2011, 105,000 filers with incomes of at least $211,000 paid no federal income taxes, including 3,000 with incomes of at least $2.2 million. But hey, MittT23, don't let the facts get in the way of your bullshit.

Well, if you're going to make "points" and refuse to explain them, excuse me while I ignore you. Which, upon further thought, is what I should have done yesterday.

"mass character assassination" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!! ******* sheep.

Aww, Mike has comprehension issues, and needs things dumbed down so he can kinda sorta understand it. Not my job. Maybe your life coach can help.

Posted by tecwrg on 9/18/2012 10:28:00 PM (view original):I always thought that my primary responsibility as a parent was to raise my kids with two ultimate goals in mind: (1) to teach them to be responsible, and (2) to position them to be self-sufficient by the time they become adults.

These two goals are apparently bad things, according to those who wish to bash Romney and the Republicans.

What I should be doing, according to Obama and the Democrats, is: (1) teach my kids to do as little as they can to get by, and (2) teach my kids that self-sufficiency isn't that important, because the government will always be there to take care of you.

Those two goals are great. But I think you're massively mischaracterizing the Democrats.

Oh, sorry. I was just taking cresten's lead with the way he massively mischaracterizes the Republicans.

Posted by bad_luck on 9/19/2012 1:14:00 PM (view original):The problem with Mitt's statement is that 2/3 of people in the "47% that don't pay federal income tax" group do pay payroll taxes. So they do work. A family of five making $50,000 a year doesn't have federal income tax liability by (bipartisan) design. They aren't lazy moochers living on the government dole.

Half of the remaining third (of the 47%) are seniors living on social security. The other 7% of the population? Mostly students who don't work full time and are exempt.

It was a fund raiser. Equate it to a college football coach talking to boosters.

His numbers were based off what Obama will get regardless of what happens. 47%, without question, will vote for Obama. Are they all in the specified group? No, of course not.

This entire "controversy" is just a left talking point. Much like the release of Obama's "redistribution" speech is nothing more than Romney's way to counter it.

Close. Keep trying. The 47% who didn't pay income tax is accurate (though only for federal), but deceptive. The 47% who will vote for Obama no matter what is just a number he pulled out of his ***. Then, in a move of swamphawkian dishonesty, he equated the one with the other and basically labeled them all lazyass-Obama-supporter-leeches.

Posted by bad_luck on 9/19/2012 1:14:00 PM (view original):The problem with Mitt's statement is that 2/3 of people in the "47% that don't pay federal income tax" group do pay payroll taxes. So they do work. A family of five making $50,000 a year doesn't have federal income tax liability by (bipartisan) design. They aren't lazy moochers living on the government dole.

Half of the remaining third (of the 47%) are seniors living on social security. The other 7% of the population? Mostly students who don't work full time and are exempt.

It was a fund raiser. Equate it to a college football coach talking to boosters.

His numbers were based off what Obama will get regardless of what happens. 47%, without question, will vote for Obama. Are they all in the specified group? No, of course not.

This entire "controversy" is just a left talking point. Much like the release of Obama's "redistribution" speech is nothing more than Romney's way to counter it.

Close. Keep trying. The 47% who didn't pay income tax is accurate (though only for federal), but deceptive. The 47% who will vote for Obama no matter what is just a number he pulled out of his ***. Then, in a move of swamphawkian dishonesty, he equated the one with the other and basically labeled them all lazyass-Obama-supporter-leeches.

47% is Obama's base. That number wasn't "pulled out of his (Romney's) ***".

Bullshit. The percentage of Americans who consider themselves Democrats is around 33-34%. You expect me to believe his base is not only larger, but considerably larger than that?